|
|
|
February 21, 2007
Duke And The Cultural Marxist Program
I was commenting at Durham in Wonderland about the Duke Lacrosse case. I was explaining what the faculty Group of 88 are really up to and explaining their motivation. == Cultural Marxism explains what the Gang 88 is up to. The subversion of America. i.e. turning America into the USSR. an excerpt from the above Cultural Marxism link: Both communism and the New Left are alive and thriving here in America. They favor code words: tolerance, social justice, economic justice, peace, reproductive rights, sex education and safe sex, safe schools, inclusion, diversity, and sensitivity. All together, this is Cultural Marxism disguised as multiculturalism. an excerpt from a link at the above link: Gramsci posited that because Christianity had been dominant in the West for over 2000 years, not only was it fused with Western civilization, but it had corrupted the workers class. The West would have to be de-Christianized, said Gramsci, by means of a "long march through the culture." Additionally, a new proletariat must be created. In his "Prison Notebooks," he suggested that the new proletariat be comprised of many criminals, women, and racial minorities. Communists have always used the criminal element to advance their cause. They represent the muscle of the movement. Thus the New Black Panther Party (NBPP). The NBPP is not an abberation. It is part of the plan. Where argument and persuasion do not work intimidation will be used. BTW this was all worked out in the 1920s. About 5% of the American population creates the wealth we all enjoy. That 5% are our top intellectual performers. In any Communist regime they will be the first up against the wall. This is what the thugniggas of the world are up to. Which is why this is the "perfect" case for them. The sex stuff is all about destroying coherent families because such families are naturally in the way. I have been pretty much a libertine in my youth. However, nature changes all that when children start to arrive. It surprised me. Children naturally seem to change most people's point of view on the subject. Conservatism is nature's political program for families. The USSR was a bastion of free sex in the beginning. That went away after the first few years because it is not natural for families. Families are naturally conservative. It has nothing to do with politics. It is nature. To reduce the power of natural conservatism, sexaul libertinism is promoted for all, not just the unmarried, because it breaks family bonds and family bonds as Gramasci saw were an impediment to "revolution". Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 02.21.07 at 08:50 AM
Comments
On the other hand, radical Islam is spreading in this country -- among weak-willed, communitarian-minded people who never shared America's traditional sense of individualism and self-reliance, instead substituting things like gangsta rap and groupthink. To that extent, Gramscian conditioning has been effective -- but not the way Gramsci imagined. I think it's possible that were Gramsci alive today, he might be inclined to rethink the plan. So might Marx. Eric Scheie · February 21, 2007 02:42 PM Just because Kimball is right about Gramasci does not mean she is right about every thing. I have been in major error in my life (I was a Communist once). So where she is right I applaud her. Where she is wrong (Christianism) I oppose her. We are in a fight for our lives. Winston Churchill. ... "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." M. Simon · February 21, 2007 02:59 PM Eric, You are right up to a point. However, you leave out a critical data point. Muslim madrassas convincing whole cultures (mostly) that sending your children to certain death to advance Islam is a good idea. Which is why the Gramascians posited the long march through the institutions. Once you control the schools escape is difficult. Colleges now are almost wholly owned susidiaries of the Cultural Marxists. PC sets the tone on campus. M. Simon · February 21, 2007 03:07 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
February 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
February 2007
January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Outside the Wire
• (I should probably never say never) • Please don't make me refrain! • Duke And The Cultural Marxist Program • Democracy! Whiskey! What? • forgive us our pork • Too inconvenient for Al Gore? • RINO Carnival -- Dashiell Hammett edition • The Culture War (and why "we" fight) • Congressman Manzullo Speaks
Links
Site Credits
|
|
A couple of thoughts.
While I don't agree that "Cultural Marxism" is Marxism (any more than "cultural racism" is racism), I think the formulations of both Marx and Gramsci are flawed in that they suffered from static (and outdated) analysis. Just as Marx never imagined affluent workers being able to own their own homes and cars, Gramsci never saw past his view of religion as some sort of external dogma imposed by a central authority. He was extrapolating from a heirarchial Catholic Church of Italy in the 20s, and imagined people to be like children so in need of authority that when the authority was toppled, people would be helpless. I don't think America's bourgeois culture is at all like what he envisioned, and he never imagined things like tattoos and piercings could become mainstream marketed fashion, then later discarded as out of style and casually replaced with ballroom dancing and 1950s attire. This country is pretty creative and pretty resilient, and while it is not as individualistic as I'd like, there is no "culture" to be grabbed and hijacked in the way the Gramscians might imagine. In short, any successes they have will likely be short-term, and will lead to constant backlashes, because there are too many individualists who just won't buy. I'm not a libertine and never have been much of one, but I think people should be left alone. The cultural nonsense like "thugniggaintellectualism" fails to shock me, and while I don't have kids, I'd like to think they'd think for themselves and wouldn't be as fragile as the social conservatives seem to think children are. Perhaps Gramsci imagined his victims were already brainwashed and that his minions could substitute their own hogwash and then win their hearts and minds. Good luck!
It's not as if Americans live under the Sharia where if big brother's back is turned we'll run wild. The antidote is more freedom, not less, and I worry that some of the people (like Linda Kimball) who complain about Gramsci might tend to share his arrogant contempt for individualism.